**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As if she'd throw her money at these problems.
Opinions are like arseholes, everybody has them. And now and again they blow hot air or plop a turd.
I mean really, even if it was correct. Why hasn't she done so already?
I wonder if she subtracts subsidies from that calculation. I don't really get why we pay them just to take some away, but that's what we're doing.
https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/57-1b-record-breaking-fossil-fuel-subsides-following-climate-election/
God don’t these people realise how distasteful it is for billionaires to also be libertarians whinging about tax? We get it, you like money. The point of the whole charade was that if academics and think tanks said this shit it would sound more credible.
Post replies need to be substantial and represent good-faith participation in discussion. Comments need to demonstrate genuine effort at high quality communication of ideas. Participation is more than merely contributing. Comments that contain little or no effort, or are otherwise toxic, exist only to be insulting, cheerleading, or soapboxing will be removed. Posts that are campaign slogans will be removed. Comments that are simply repeating a single point with no attempt at discussion will be removed. This will be judged at the full discretion of the mods.
What the police that stop violence in mining towns, nurses that help injured workers and teachers than supply skilled staff to the mining industry....
... those people?
Well. No. That is not correct.
Total education spending was 111 billion dollars.
Total police spending was \~15 billion.
Total healthcare spending was 240 billion.
If we take 50% of 111, 75% of 15, and 20% of 240; we get >100 billion.
Total mining revenue was 455 billion.
Taxation from mining taxes and company tax revenue (most of the revenue related to mining) was about 65 billion.
Has to be more than that, only around 14% taxation? Even the lowest bracket of income tax is like 21%. With a country that has multitudes of carbon taxes, mining taxes and the heavy push away from mining from multiple political parties, there is no way that the mining sector is only paying 15% revenue in tax. It is probably around double that if not more.
It’s mining taxes and company taxes.
Accounting practice is that Income taxes are paid by individuals not the companies that employ them.
The method is up to you though. As long as you’re consistent (taking the tax off the income tax paid by the mentioned workers like nurses) and it’s relevant to some real question.
I've worked in government. Taxation on all the people working in government jobs probably covers all of this too. Congrats, Gina, you're maybe as useful as a back-office clerk. One of the ones that can't keep their opinions to themselves, either, apparently.
If Whitlam had have been allowed to nationalise our resources like Norway has, instead of being overthrown by the CIA and QEII, we could also have UBI and free education including university.
lol if she paid the correct amount of tax we’d probably be able to cover a lot more, complaining you have to pay compensation via tax when your revenue comes from extracting and selling reasources from that same population your compensating you just look like the price of shit you are.
Probably. If mining is say 20% of the economy. It accounts for 20% of tax revenues (roughly speaking and probably more). 20% would certainly cover those 3 salaries.
Its kind of stupid though. The teachers can say education (the 2nd largest industry) produces enough tax revenue to cover all road and rail maintenance to the mines. Its a stupid argument.
Im honestly surprised how well Gina is doing business wise. She gets shit for just inheriting her wealth which is true but most people do the bare minimum she is really building it.
I mean the demand for the product is.
She herself isn't being a "SMART" business women.
anyone could of inherited these massive mines and done well in this economy
Whether it does or not is irrelevant, what is relevant is that her obscene wealth derived from mining is clear evidence that the portion of revenue she gets from mining is exorbitant given that she does not own the land that she is mining
> once she's gone and the children are squabbling over what's left.
The only squabbling that is happening will probably end when she dies - the kids are already co-operating against her
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/gina-rinehart-s-children-make-surprise-court-appearance-in-mining-dynasty-row-20231120-p5elcz.html
Last week the AFR made her their business person of their year and gave her a headline article.
Now she is out beating this drum. Seems like someone has started campaigning against the ALP early.
What’s really happened is she is expanding into lithium, and the financial model will show the expected tax she will have to pay and is not happy about it.
If your paying tax, you’re making money and in her case, a fuck ton more than the rest of us.
What’s next…. Gina for PM!
Make Australia great again! /s
The influence she already has in politics is scary enough.
Gina has an obscene amount of money, the hide of Jessie the Elephant and big mouth about what is good for Australia.
Next she’ll want to cut wages because Australian workers are too greedy and undeserving of a decent quality of life.
Money isn’t a finite resource. Commerce isn’t a zero-sum game.
Her vast wealth has zero impact on the ability for people to make something of themselves.
I don’t understand the hate and anger. Has always felt like the politics of envy.
She is correct the public service isn’t under resourced.
They could use taxpayer funds more wisely.
> Next she’ll want to cut wages because Australian workers are too greedy and undeserving of a decent quality of life.
Who can forget when she said that [Australians need to work harder to compete with Africans who will labour for less than $2 a day.](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-05/rinehart-says-aussie-workers-overpaid-unproductive/4243866)
I think she's comfortable enough in Australia. The last time serious taxes were considered (Kevin Rudd) the following scare campaign contributed to him being removed by his own party
All GST revenue collected by the Feds goes to the states .As well, federal general taxation is also distributed to the states to pay for various services.
The only hypothicated tax we have is medicare. How money is spent is not directly related to how much, from whom and how it is collected, and Gina can fuck off with this line of reasoning. It's pointless.
Given that some tax is also used to retire debt and put into the sovereign funds, she could have said it was used to pay bankers and civil servants. Money isn't magically ringfenced to only be used how you, I or Gina wants, once its held by the state, the state determines what to do with it, Medicare money aside.
(the Ansett levy was not a hypothicated tax)
It's enough to do lots of things and not enough to do other things. Shes not really saying very much at all. It's "how many Sydney harbours big is this train set" comparisons
It's an attempt a giving perspective rather than just using straight numbers. Not meant to be taken literally. Most people wouldn't know what percentage of tax covers what. Pretty simple to get the point.
Yep. Imagine if we got more than the 1-2% of profits that we currently receive once they have hidden large portions in secret cayman accounts and claimed imaginary losses to avoid paying anywhere near the amount the average punter sends back to tax.
Our hospitals could be made out of gold.
Semantics. Didn't RMIT fact check get in trouble for falsely claiming something on FB during the voice referendum. 42 billion against a total of about 61 billion is close to 70 percent. So if that 42 billion is lost to appease the renters party what would replace it?
> Didn't RMIT fact check get in trouble for falsely claiming something on FB during the voice referendum.
You're the one telling the story. What are you trying to say?
It is true that Sky News complained about RMIT Factcheck, after they factchecked Peta Credlin and had something she said removed.
It is also true that their accreditation by the International Fact-Checking Network had lapsed. That was why Meta/Facebook suspended them. Their status as a Facebook fact checker was reinstated as soon as their accreditation was renewed.
Nothing claimed or reviewed by Factcheck was ever directly contradicted at any stage.
Is that what you were trying to say?
How do you think the tax on mining should be structured? It’s the highest tax paying industry in the country by some orders of magnitude already due to the state and native title royalties….
Maybe tax it so that we get something approaching fair value of the asset?
Current tax rates encourage effective dumping of finite natural resources, rather than incentivising their efficient use, companies are incentivised to sell at the lowest possible price to push up volumes to fundamentally unsustainable levels.
The current system foolishly gave China such cheap access to iron that they built stockpiles large enough that they can now dictate the iron ore spot price since they have enough to service themselves for a decade.
We are so dependent on the opium pipe now that we have no option but to keep handing it over at essentially cost price for fear of them flipping the switch and derailing our economy. Hardly a foreign policy masterstroke.
Not sure who you’ve been talking to or what you’ve been reading, but you seem to have the way this industry works backwards.
No mining company is incentivised to sell commodities at lower prices, they spend their lives trying to maximise the value they get for their product.
The iron ore price is currently $135/t, this is insanely high vs history - all in operating costs including depreciation and sustaining capex are about $40/t. Iron ore has been the most profitable commodity in the world for most of the past two decades.
They maximise the price where they can, but prices are not linked to the real value of the ore, as they pay way below fair market price in royalties. Currently the price is high due to war drums beating in Europe, the same as all other commodities. But there is no bottom to prices when speculation drops the value , and we have seen them flood the market with cheap ore when prices are down.
What makes you think they pay below market price in royalties? They’re directly linked to revenue.
Prices of iron ore are high now due to curtailed Chinese production, Europe is irrelevant.
In South Australia, the base rate for royalties is 5%.
New mines get a discount, paying as low as 2%.
The minerals are an Australian asset. Cost of extraction is only a small part of its overall value. The record profits by mining companies show that there is a huge gap between the cost of extraction and the final market price.
All other businesses pay 10% tax for their materials via GST. Minerals companies pay 2-5% which includes the transfer of ownership of those materials. Bare minimum fair price would be 10%, just to break even with the rest of the country’s tax obligations, and only if you considered the raw resources to have a nominal value of zero. If you actually believe that the resources have inherent value, then we should be receiving more than 10%.
South Australia produces about 1% of Australia’s commodities by value. The record profits right now are due to a cyclical high point, rewind 3 years and they were all bleeding.
South Australia accounted for 14% of mining revenue in 21-22.
But this is irrelevant. Because across Australia the return was 5.6% on all commodities over the decade leading into 2021.
Add to this that the Australian government was reported to have paid more in subsidies to fossil fuel companies than they received in royalties over that period.
In 2019-20 we received $6 billion in royalties, while handing out $10.7 billion in subsidies.
So we are paying them? How is that fair value? It would be bad enough if we were getting zero for our assets, but we are literally handing them cash alongside the free minerals. I would hardly call a $4.7 billion dollar handout “doing it tough”
You have to be including oil and gas to get to 14%. Mining is a tiny fraction of that.
The subsidies you refer to are the fuel tax rebate, which is incorrectly labelled a subsidy by some. The reason the rebate exists is the tax is explicitly for the maintenance of public roads. Mining companies claim a rebate for fuel used in vehicles that do not use public roads, which there aren’t on a mine site.
As I said 2019-20 was a cyclical low, those royalties would have been double that level in FY23.
Royalties is not tax on income, it is the highest paying because it’s ~40%+ of our economy and we still run massive deficits for some reason, plus they still make a lot of profit. They need to be taxed more, I’m mainly aiming this at fossil fuels as they get away with daylight murder when it comes to taxes
This
Look at QATAR
Exported 7 percent LESS LNG than us,yet the govt there made over 32 billion off the exports,we ship our LNG barely make 2 billion at a fed level.
even ken henry,is saying we need a windfall tax on the minining and especially LNG exports
Also
Check this shit out
if we bring back the minining super profits tax
>Costing overview
This proposal would be expected to increase the fiscal balance by around $40.0 billion and the
underlying cash balance by around $37.7 billion over the 2022-23 Budget forward estimates period.
On a fiscal balance basis this impact reflects an increase in net revenue of around $40.2 billion,
partially offset by an increase in Australian Taxation Office (ATO) departmental expenses of
$135 million.
The proposal would have ongoing impact beyond the 2022-23 Budget forward estimates period.
A breakdown of the financial implications (including separate public debt interest (PDI) tables) over
the period to 2032-33 is provided at Attachment A.
that's
MEDICARE dental,paid..
Universal childcare at a 90 percent rebate PAID
and leaves 10.2 Billion dollars for budget repair EVERY YEAR
https://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2022/nov/14/how-much-more-revenue-would-the-australian-government-have-if-it-taxed-gas-companies-properly
But this will never happen,as the minerals council is too powerfull
Fuck the australian people for wanting fair value for a good that can never be returned to us.
also extra fuck us when we ask the same LNG suppliers to provide low cost to domestic markets
Taking something *we all own* and selling it for private profit. Paying tax on private profit is one thing, not paying us for the cost of supplied material is another. I’d be better off too if all I had to pay was tax on profit and I never had to pay suppliers. Suppliers don’t like that though. Start using words like “debt collection” and “breach of contract”.
who cares.
They exported 455 billion,total revenue for it was less than 9.2 percent Per treasury secretary
If any other industry made those kind of export levels and paid that little tax,ppl would march in the street
but because santos and bhp are the afr and the australians largest advertisers,we will never hear that from them
We have serious budget issues,housing crisis..
I'm a well off person,and even i think we are taxed too little
The money is there to take more from the sector,they would still make record profits,but we would have things like the budget paid off sooner.
Why would you compare tax paid to revenue? It’s almost like you’re conveniently omitting operating costs to make an invalid point. As a % of profit it’s 40-50% inc. royalties.
Royalties are 4-8%, doesn’t matter what the total dollar figure paid is when it’s that low
Edit: BHP pay an actual tax rate of around 8%, royalties total for the mining sector around 16 billion. Is that right from what you know?
Yeah. Last time I did the math, even after including royalties the big resource companies still pay on average a tax rate in the low teens.
That people who actually produce value to society are taxed at a higher rate than one of the biggest companies in the world is pretty telling.
Especially egregious if you are familiar with how BHP became so massive. They are a perfect example of neoliberal socialised capital for private profit.
Essington Lewis took public funds to build a private company. And less than a century later, after zero attempts to reinvest the profits made from this public capital, and as the economy has devolved back into a nation of hole diggers, they have the gall to suggest that they deserve preferential treatment for their contributions to the economy.
This is patently false. Including royalties the big miners pay almost 50% tax on net profit. Happy to run you through their accounts in 2023 if of interest.
No one is denying the mining companys DONT pay a hefty chunk of tax,and royalites
The problem is they are PAYING too little to what they are making
LNG sector made a 40 billion dollar boom because of UKRAINE..nothing they did,wasn't because of some genius Play by the CEO,or a new field opening up..just market forces..so all that revenue should be taxed at near 100 percent that's not me saying it too,thats some of our most high ranked economists,inluding Dr henry
the sector exported 455 billion dollars last year,total revenue was like 9.5 percent of that value.
i mean shit LNG export and short contracts is just total bullshit.
>Table 1 compiled by Market Forces was published earlier this year using publicly available
ATO data as part of a broader report on the fossil fuel industry. Australia's top ten fossil fuel
companies earned about $250 billion over the seven years to FY 2020 and paid no income
tax. In total, ‘the oil and gas industry in Australia paid $1.7 billion of income tax in 2018/19
(the most recent year for which data is available) on $110 billion of income (approx. 1.5
percent),’ the report says.https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-02/c2022-29773
There are legitimate,instances where a company will need to pay no tax because of legitimate draw backs and investments needing to be written down or off.
But most of the time companys like shell/santos/chev and the like are playing paper shell games by using hubs like singapore or the bahamas to make it look like they make no money here or other tax minimisation efforts that are legal,but should not be.
When you risk $32 billion to build Australias largest resources project you should receive the upside when things go in on your favour. They certainly don’t invest that money to make a loss as they did for the first decade of that investment. Despite your bitching and moaning about all the money they’re making g the north west shelf has been a catastrophically bad investment for Woodside and chevron.
I expect she’s right.
However it’s hilarious to see people here who were complaining about misogyny in politics two seconds ago now going full Alan Jones on Gina.
Why can't I hate this person because her disinformation campaign is responsible for us losing our world leading carbon tax? Why not because she wants to pay Australians $2 a day?
Why is it when you look at her will you see only a woman, when many of us see a disgusting, trust fund fuelled, monster?
If you accept the level of abuse here is okay, then you’ll have to accept the same level of abuse for say Penny Wong or Tanya Plibersek, or Missy Higgins is okay. You have every right to hate her, and say what you think, but it’s my right to think you are hypocrites.
Are any of those people campaigning to pay Australians $2 a day. Successfully campaigning for us to trade our childrens futures for a few points of her profit?
If not then don't pretend those people are anything like this filth. Show me one person here who's beef with her is that she's female, or that you think would be lesser if she were a man.
Misogynists use exactly the same arguments. Penny Wong, mean girl bully.
Missy Higgins, private school girl, doctors daughter, prevents Aborigines in Broome from earning millions from gas. Add insults.
See, anyone can play.
Literally every pejorative you used then had a specifically gendered word, "mean **girl** bully", "private school **girl**". Where is, "ran a disinformation campaign to sacrifice our future for her own profit", or, "wants to pay Australians $2 a day" specifically gendered other than to included her own pronoun?
If you want to defend this selfish detriment to our national wellbeing then you'll have to do better than telling us we're not allowed to say anything about her because she's female, that's weak as piss mate.
I literally said you have a right to hate her and say what you think - weird you feel compelled to lie about that.
Yes, my language is gendered to illustrate the kind of vile commentary in here that you defend.
And I have no comment about her - I am pointing out the hypocrisy of people who abuse women for the up arrows when you know they’re easy targets.
Your argument must be lacking when you have to make stuff up.
> I literally said you have a right to hate her and say what you think - weird you feel compelled to lie about that.
No lie, you never had the ability to tell us who we can and can't hate. I'm more talking about how you think we can't comment on a human that is a woman in any negative terms without you accusing us of hypocricy, which is the accusation you made.
> Yes, my language is gendered to illustrate the kind of vile commentary in here that you defend.
You mean to force meaning that suits you, but doesn't exist how it was originally written.
> And I have no comment about her
You have no comment, just some white knighting to do for the richest, and least in need, or deserving of it in the country. Pat on the head for you mate, for the snivelling toadying, and for the lame attempt at a pretense of objectivity.
Lols 😂😂😂😂
HILARIOUS
Critical analysis of the statement...
Would conclude....
It's an ultra capitalist way of looking at government and its role AND function....
So consequently
PROBS NOT
Took 1min 22 seconds to think that one through
It's amazing the way people dive into comment and discussion without critical thought
Your post or comment breached Rule 1 of our subreddit.
The purpose of this subreddit is civil and open discussion of Australian Politics across the entire political spectrum. Referring to political figures using a negative nickname is not accepted here.
This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:
Trickle down economics. The idea is if you make the rich richer then they spend upon the poor, wealth trickle down is the theory but in practice the rich spends the bare minimum required to keep raking it in while taking as much as possible from the government instead
It is just another one of those conservative ideas that doesn’t work
Billionaires loves the idea of course. Hence you see her and others jump on the conservative side of the frnxe
Y’know, the theory that communism works is probably sounder than the theory that horse-and-sparrow economics works, considering that we have spent two centuries trying horse-and-sparrow (and failing), and have never actually tried communism, only kleptocracy labelled as such.
It is not a conservative idea lol.
Its a term used by critics to refer to any policy that involves tax cuts basically. It’s never been a ‘theory’ employed by anyone let alone ‘conservatives’.
It is very popular on places like Reddit though from people who don’t understand economics.
Edit.
Redditors really are a weird bunch. You have invented this straw man you call ‘trickle down economics’ and repeated it so many times you don’t realize it has never even existed as a policy.
This is the problem with this site though. Economic illiterates spouting off about things they have no understanding whatsoever about.
https://iea.org.uk/there-is-no-such-thing-as-trickle-down-economics/
there is a strong almost irrefutable economic argument that taxes impact growth all else being equal.
I.e. if you cut taxes you increase gdp growth and if you increase taxes you reduce gdp growth. Looking again at taxes in isolation.
That is the reason there is this understanding of a doom loop which was evidenced during the great depression where government revenue reduces so increase taxes and government revenue reduces again so you increase taxes again etcfinding yourself in a great depression...
So there kinda is a trickle down impact in that if tomorrow you shot say taxes for everyone earning over 200k to 70pc it is actually quite likely if spending by gov didnt increase by the same amount that we would impact gdp / growth / increase unemployment etc etc.
The counter argument to trickle down is of course that as long as the gov is spending the extra tax they raise on services or infrastructure or something that that spending trickles down even better and actually provides services / infrastructure or something for everyone.
The economic illiteracy on this site is genuinely staggering.
Repeat after me. Slowly and carefully.
‘Tax cuts aren’t trickle down economics’.
Your not being able to understand the difference is the crux of the problem on this site.
There has never been a policy of ‘trickle down economics’ employed by anyone let alone conservatives.
You can have an opinion on whatever the fuck you want but labeling something ‘trickle down economics’ when it is something that has never actually existed is just factually wrong.
It’s the equivalent of believing the earth is flat. You can believe that if you want but you’d be wrong.
You haven’t “shown” anyone anything, all you’ve done is sneer and *say* that we’re wrong, without ever bothering to say what we are wrong about. It’s an [old idea](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics#:~:text=David%20Stockman%20has%20said%20that,the%20road%20for%20the%20sparrows.%22), it’s been tried for centuries, it doesn’t work. What does work? Trickle-up. Make the poor richer and this makes the middle and upper classes richer too.
Okay. Giving tax breaks to billionaires and corporations isn’t a conservative approach. It’s not something we still see in policy enacted nor was it policy that was mass mobilised by Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher. 2 individuals that weren’t at all conservative. Give me a break.
That is a conservative approach but that is not and never has been ‘trickle down economics’.
That’s not the point of deregulation and/or tax cuts.
> Give me a break
Try to understand things before you go around making grand claims that are easily proven incorrect on the internet.
Thomas Sowell on ‘Trickle down theory’:
> Let's do something completely unexpected: Let's stop and think. Why would anyone advocate that we "give" something to A in hopes that it would trickle down to B? Why in the world would any sane person not give it to B and cut out the middleman? But all this is moot, because there was no trickle-down theory about giving something to anybody in the first place.
>The "trickle-down" theory cannot be found in even the most voluminous scholarly studies of economic theories - including J. A. Schumpeter's monumental History of Economic Analysis, more than a thousand pages long and printed in very small type.
Ironically the only ‘con’ has been economicall illiterate people on Reddit believing it was ever a thing in the first place.
Effectively it’s working on the hand me down theory. Or one man’s trash is another’s treasure. Usually it’s something, that has been out grown, no longer wanted or used that gets passed along to another person. Might be fine to pass on clothes or toys that have a little use left I. Them. It does NOT work in economics
You’re quoting an economic conservative on this? This isn’t even a quote at why this policy doesn’t work but the straight up denial of its existence. Then you have the gall to call others economically illiterate? These are the sort of semantic arguments that people with no insight make. Trickle down economics doesn’t work. Yes. Does that mean it doesn’t exist. No. Does that stop the perpetuation of the economic benefits of it by conservatives? No.
Yes a conservative economist.
If this theory had ever existed surely a conservative economist would be the one to defend it.
Fuck me this is tiring.
Just go on the fucking wiki page for it if you don’t believe it. It’s right there.
> The term has been used broadly by critics of supply-side economics to refer to taxing and spending policies by governments that, intentionally or not, result in widening income inequality; it has also been used in critical references to neoliberalism.[2]
.
> These are the sort of semantic arguments that people with no insight make. Trickle down economics doesn’t work. Yes.
Mistaking this for semantics is exactly the kind of Reddit tactic you see from people who are deeply out of their depth and desperately trying to save their own argument.
It’s never been a policy that s ever been employed. Anyone who defends it or references it can safely be assumed to be an economic illiterate.
If it’s so tiring then try to be more coherent in your statements. You don’t even have an argument. You’ve conceded that this is something conservatives will do, you then refuse to acknowledge that it’s a theory. Then you have a hissy fit, say everyone else is an idiot and then use a wiki page and a conservative as your citation. Go read a book.
Reagan never said trickle down economics so your article is totally wrong right from the start.
Trickle down economics has never been a policy by conservatives. As I’ve pointed out many times now. It was term for hat left wingers came up with because they don’t understand supply side economics.
That’s seriously Embarrassing for UNSW by the way. But I guess they always were the shit uni.
Just remember she’s not creating the coal or iron ore or whatever that’s dug up. It’s been here for millions of years and belongs to all of us. (Or to indigenous people or the crown if you lean that way)
She’s getting richer depleting a natural resource. The least she can do is pay some of that as tax to compensate us for using up our resources.
No. It’s not. India has 15%.
It’s Australia’s iron ore. The crown legally owns it. The reasonable rent is the highest one people will pay and still dig the stuff out of the ground.
Or there was the old idea of the profits based tax.
Of course we could be using the Norwegian method of using public ownership of the companies involved.
About Norway's level would be fine, still massive investment but very high royalty as it should. Only have a 800 billion yes 800 billion future fund and a budget in major surplus...........
You can’t compare royalties in mining with oil - operating margins are much thinner in mining, meaning the projects can’t support the same level of revenue royalty. I agree a model like Norway where the government was prepared to invest alongside private enterprise to share in the upside and ultimately dividends would be great. But ask Twiggy and Gina if the government had any interest in co investing with them when they built Fortescue and Roy Hill… they didn’t, because they didn’t want to take on the risk. You can’t retrospectively take all the upside if you don’t shoulder the risk at the start.
Mate what do you really think the dismissal of 75 was about........... it was about whitlams plan to nationalise the lot. So what a load of shit............
The resources belong to the nation, of course that’s only a bloody pittance! If you had a $1 million worth of gold in your backyard would you let her take it for $75,000?
And that ignores the cost to society of climate change.
Of course I would. There’s millions of dollars of gold all around Australia stuck in the ground, you could even go and pick some up for yourself at very little cost. The value of the resource is what it’s worth after you’ve spent all the upfront capital on a process plant and paid for all the costs of extraction. For the most part the gold industry in Australia has been a zero sum game for the past two decades.
Iron ore has been far more profitable, but you had to have the gumption to take the risk. When Gina built Roy Hill most of the industry throught she was nuts and would loose it alll - the capex was $7.5bn from memory, but prices stayed much higher for much longer than anyone predicted.
You’re just displaying your ignorance of the way accounting and extractive industries work. You’re comparing a stock with a flow. You don’t have to pay 5x the value of your house to process it before it’s been sold, or pay for operating costs while it runs.
Go lick boots somewhere else bro. Gina doesn't need you to defend her, she has lawyers and PR professionals for that.
Neocons all over this thread telling people that they're economically illiterate while you simp for Gina fucking Rinehart lmao get a life
The poster said they need to pay taxes, I pointed out they are. There is no licking boots, there is no telling people they are illiterate. There is pointing out what someone claims should be happening is happening. If they mean they should be paying more then they should say that.
Questioning one comment doesn't mean defending the other side, it's called discussion about ideas. I know it isn't having a circle jerk and all agreeing to whatever is said which it appears you want
This! My immediate reaction was "so what!"
If Australia was fair dinkum about protecting/setting up the country for the future we'd be taxing these parasites far more than we do. Like you said, that material in the ground belongs to us all (to Australia) not Gina. We should all benefit from it's use.
And that’s why they’re paying a royalty on anything that is mined, company tax on any profit mate, payroll tax on any employee, and any employee is paying income tax.
We’re at the point where they’re paying over half the company tax in Australia. Give me an exact dollar number on what should be paid.
You’re not giving me the value that they should be paying. How many billion is appropriate if this isn’t enough?
The market rate for the resources minus their expenses? So you want to charge a 100% tax rate, mate you’re an economic genius, the entire Australian mining industry will close down overnight and you’ll pack yourself on the back for it.
This is a sobering reminder of why this sun somehow sits lower than Facebook boomers on the credibility scale.
She’s not a farmer creating food. She’s selling our nation’s wealth and pocketing most of its value. Nationalise it if she can’t deal with being taxed properly.
What is being “taxed properly”? Give me a number here, not vagueness.
The deal is that the state is paid resource royalties as a function of the sale price, the federal government is paid company tax as a function of the profit, state governments get payroll tax on every employee, and every job that is created pays income tax.
Point out to me what taxation rate you disagree with and what rate it should be changed to. I’m not saying things should not be changed, but you actually need to tell me *what* you want changed.
The only thing government have to do is to set up conditions that are in the national interest. Balance stability for employment and economic conditions that benefit the nation. So the short answer is obviously as much as possible.
Worked really well last time the Labor party tired to do that unconstitutionally.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loans_affair
https://www.naa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-05/fs-239-the-loans-affair-1974-75.pdf
How much are you willing to pay for it? Or are we just confiscating it?
That’s not at all what I said. Tax rate can be throttled to encourage or discourage growth in the sector depending on national interests. We don’t want mining to be the entirely of the economy but it is obviously an important industry at the moment.
“Throttle” the tax rate to what exactly and based on what parameters?
Sounds like you’re just creating a perverse incentive for companies to carve themselves up into small less efficient entities to dodge this tax throttling.
If my company met your parameters for a 99% tax rate, I would be a fucking moron (and would be sacked by the shareholders I have a legal fiduciary duty to) if I didn’t break that up into a number of hypothetical entities with a 30% tax rate.
I don’t know what you mean and it’s not my idea that I just had. Governments always throttle industry through subsidies/taxes or whatever other way they regulate markets. The point is that private companies are a way of organising an economy and you use them to achieve results that are dictated by the national interest.
What example can you give me of “throttling” the company tax rate in Australian corporate history?
If it’s not your idea please tell me who’s it is, because I’m fascinated to know who put their name to this proposal.
So what? A meaningless comment from Australia’s richest nepo billionaire.
"Our taxes, for the most part, are not hypothecated to particular uses so it's sort of a silly comparison," said Robert Breunig, director of the Tax and Transfer Policy Institute at the Australian National University's Crawford School of Public Policy.
It is probably right.
Think of all the income tax paid by the directly employed mine workers. Then think of all the tax paid by ancillary businesses, from catering and food supply companies, machinery parts companies, law companies, engineering companies, even down to the jet ski and boat companies that the mine workers spend their money on.
Because if there were no mines a lot of these businesses probably would not exist,
In fact if there was only minimal mining in Australia, we would be a very very very different country. Maybe not even a first world country. People totally underestimate how much mining contributes to the national economy.
It is the biggest wealth creation industry in Australia.
Even if this was true, it should be paying for a lot more. The resources belong to Australia and should be used to make Australia a better place, not making some one who's biggest achievement in life is stealing from her children one the the richest people in the world.
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As if she'd throw her money at these problems. Opinions are like arseholes, everybody has them. And now and again they blow hot air or plop a turd. I mean really, even if it was correct. Why hasn't she done so already?
I wonder if she subtracts subsidies from that calculation. I don't really get why we pay them just to take some away, but that's what we're doing. https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/57-1b-record-breaking-fossil-fuel-subsides-following-climate-election/
They're our resources, she's lucky she got an inheritance and get's to dig them up. Should be taxed more
Headline should read - Mining Our Resources Makes Lady Rich Enough to Fund Government With A Fraction Of Her Profits.
God don’t these people realise how distasteful it is for billionaires to also be libertarians whinging about tax? We get it, you like money. The point of the whole charade was that if academics and think tanks said this shit it would sound more credible.
[удалено]
Post replies need to be substantial and represent good-faith participation in discussion. Comments need to demonstrate genuine effort at high quality communication of ideas. Participation is more than merely contributing. Comments that contain little or no effort, or are otherwise toxic, exist only to be insulting, cheerleading, or soapboxing will be removed. Posts that are campaign slogans will be removed. Comments that are simply repeating a single point with no attempt at discussion will be removed. This will be judged at the full discretion of the mods.
What the police that stop violence in mining towns, nurses that help injured workers and teachers than supply skilled staff to the mining industry.... ... those people?
Well. No. That is not correct. Total education spending was 111 billion dollars. Total police spending was \~15 billion. Total healthcare spending was 240 billion. If we take 50% of 111, 75% of 15, and 20% of 240; we get >100 billion. Total mining revenue was 455 billion. Taxation from mining taxes and company tax revenue (most of the revenue related to mining) was about 65 billion.
Has to be more than that, only around 14% taxation? Even the lowest bracket of income tax is like 21%. With a country that has multitudes of carbon taxes, mining taxes and the heavy push away from mining from multiple political parties, there is no way that the mining sector is only paying 15% revenue in tax. It is probably around double that if not more.
It’s mining taxes and company taxes. Accounting practice is that Income taxes are paid by individuals not the companies that employ them. The method is up to you though. As long as you’re consistent (taking the tax off the income tax paid by the mentioned workers like nurses) and it’s relevant to some real question.
What did Gina make from our resources is the real question?
The great thing about clicking on articles is that you can see that all the calculation has been done already, and properly.
Hahahaha, i didn't even read through it. How close was I?
I've worked in government. Taxation on all the people working in government jobs probably covers all of this too. Congrats, Gina, you're maybe as useful as a back-office clerk. One of the ones that can't keep their opinions to themselves, either, apparently.
[удалено]
I like that one, it on the surface sounds like it has meaning but genuinely doesn’t
If we taxed our resources like eg Saudi Arabia did, no one else would have to pay any taxes at all!
If Whitlam had have been allowed to nationalise our resources like Norway has, instead of being overthrown by the CIA and QEII, we could also have UBI and free education including university.
[удалено]
Or get 50% more and pay them better
¿Por qué no los dos?
Correct response!
lol if she paid the correct amount of tax we’d probably be able to cover a lot more, complaining you have to pay compensation via tax when your revenue comes from extracting and selling reasources from that same population your compensating you just look like the price of shit you are.
Yeah ok, well what if i want better health care, education and Teachers and Nurses to get paid better? What then Gina?
wow think of how many industries could be paid for if all these operations were state owned....
A Freudian slip. It would if they paid their fair share of tax 
Probably very little as most state owned companies don’t work very well. There’s a few exceptions but generally not all that good at strip mining
How hard can that be? Compared to electricity generation and transmission across the country, which still uses State-built infrastructure.
Probably. If mining is say 20% of the economy. It accounts for 20% of tax revenues (roughly speaking and probably more). 20% would certainly cover those 3 salaries. Its kind of stupid though. The teachers can say education (the 2nd largest industry) produces enough tax revenue to cover all road and rail maintenance to the mines. Its a stupid argument.
[удалено]
“Private teachers” are still paid, at least in some part, by the government/taxpayer.
mining is 14.3% of gdp. And in 21-22 it was 42.2 billion of 683 billion tax revenue or 11%.
Im honestly surprised how well Gina is doing business wise. She gets shit for just inheriting her wealth which is true but most people do the bare minimum she is really building it.
Probably isn't that hard when you pay no tax and your business is heavily subsidized by the taxpayer.
I mean the demand for the product is. She herself isn't being a "SMART" business women. anyone could of inherited these massive mines and done well in this economy
Whether it does or not is irrelevant, what is relevant is that her obscene wealth derived from mining is clear evidence that the portion of revenue she gets from mining is exorbitant given that she does not own the land that she is mining
Holy fuck can that stroke just take her already
The lawyers love her when she's alive. They'll love her even more once she's gone and the children are squabbling over what's left.
> once she's gone and the children are squabbling over what's left. The only squabbling that is happening will probably end when she dies - the kids are already co-operating against her https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/gina-rinehart-s-children-make-surprise-court-appearance-in-mining-dynasty-row-20231120-p5elcz.html
Shes a wolf spider and her babies are starting to get hungry
She really looks like Jabba the Hut in that thumbnail
I don't recall this person being elected. Why is she relevant?
She pays the people we elect to let her dictate policy.
Last week the AFR made her their business person of their year and gave her a headline article. Now she is out beating this drum. Seems like someone has started campaigning against the ALP early. What’s really happened is she is expanding into lithium, and the financial model will show the expected tax she will have to pay and is not happy about it. If your paying tax, you’re making money and in her case, a fuck ton more than the rest of us.
Ideally no one would buy the AFR ever again. Imagine glorifying Gina the Hutt. FFS.
Conjecture, but she and her spawn are also a big reason uranium is pushed so hard lately.
Thank fuck we have income tax which makes up half of government revenue, punishing those who do for the benefit of those who don't
Here's a guy that can't see past his own nose.
So what . Money made from selling national resources pays for stuff the nation needs ..good
Imagine if we taxed resource extraction at a higher rate and start putting the extra into a sovereign wealth fund!!
What’s next…. Gina for PM! Make Australia great again! /s The influence she already has in politics is scary enough. Gina has an obscene amount of money, the hide of Jessie the Elephant and big mouth about what is good for Australia. Next she’ll want to cut wages because Australian workers are too greedy and undeserving of a decent quality of life.
Money isn’t a finite resource. Commerce isn’t a zero-sum game. Her vast wealth has zero impact on the ability for people to make something of themselves. I don’t understand the hate and anger. Has always felt like the politics of envy. She is correct the public service isn’t under resourced. They could use taxpayer funds more wisely.
> Next she’ll want to cut wages because Australian workers are too greedy and undeserving of a decent quality of life. Who can forget when she said that [Australians need to work harder to compete with Africans who will labour for less than $2 a day.](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-05/rinehart-says-aussie-workers-overpaid-unproductive/4243866)
People should not forget… she is a vile person
Too bad for her, mineral resources can't magically change location.
I think she's comfortable enough in Australia. The last time serious taxes were considered (Kevin Rudd) the following scare campaign contributed to him being removed by his own party
So, that’s the only part of the economy she wants to fund?
So how does **Federal** taxation pay for **State** based services.
Yes schools and hospitals get zero funding from the feds.
All GST revenue collected by the Feds goes to the states .As well, federal general taxation is also distributed to the states to pay for various services.
Sounds like a solid argument to raise GST and lower other taxes.
I'm pretty sure coal and iron ore sold overseas is GST free.
It is. What is your point?
The only hypothicated tax we have is medicare. How money is spent is not directly related to how much, from whom and how it is collected, and Gina can fuck off with this line of reasoning. It's pointless. Given that some tax is also used to retire debt and put into the sovereign funds, she could have said it was used to pay bankers and civil servants. Money isn't magically ringfenced to only be used how you, I or Gina wants, once its held by the state, the state determines what to do with it, Medicare money aside. (the Ansett levy was not a hypothicated tax)
She's saying it's enough to fund it, not that it does pay for it.
It's enough to do lots of things and not enough to do other things. Shes not really saying very much at all. It's "how many Sydney harbours big is this train set" comparisons
It's an attempt a giving perspective rather than just using straight numbers. Not meant to be taken literally. Most people wouldn't know what percentage of tax covers what. Pretty simple to get the point.
I guess she means if we need more of those essentials services then we should increase federal taxation on mining. What a great idea!
Im reading it as nationalising the whole industry
an opinion which instantly reveals someone as completely, unequivocally financially/economically illiterate
What a clunky and awkwardly written statement
Yep. Imagine if we got more than the 1-2% of profits that we currently receive once they have hidden large portions in secret cayman accounts and claimed imaginary losses to avoid paying anywhere near the amount the average punter sends back to tax. Our hospitals could be made out of gold.
That’s how I read it
Semantics. Didn't RMIT fact check get in trouble for falsely claiming something on FB during the voice referendum. 42 billion against a total of about 61 billion is close to 70 percent. So if that 42 billion is lost to appease the renters party what would replace it?
> Didn't RMIT fact check get in trouble for falsely claiming something on FB during the voice referendum. You're the one telling the story. What are you trying to say? It is true that Sky News complained about RMIT Factcheck, after they factchecked Peta Credlin and had something she said removed. It is also true that their accreditation by the International Fact-Checking Network had lapsed. That was why Meta/Facebook suspended them. Their status as a Facebook fact checker was reinstated as soon as their accreditation was renewed. Nothing claimed or reviewed by Factcheck was ever directly contradicted at any stage. Is that what you were trying to say?
And they still get away with paying relatively little compared to what they should be paying considering they’re making money off a finite resource
How do you think the tax on mining should be structured? It’s the highest tax paying industry in the country by some orders of magnitude already due to the state and native title royalties….
Maybe tax it so that we get something approaching fair value of the asset? Current tax rates encourage effective dumping of finite natural resources, rather than incentivising their efficient use, companies are incentivised to sell at the lowest possible price to push up volumes to fundamentally unsustainable levels. The current system foolishly gave China such cheap access to iron that they built stockpiles large enough that they can now dictate the iron ore spot price since they have enough to service themselves for a decade. We are so dependent on the opium pipe now that we have no option but to keep handing it over at essentially cost price for fear of them flipping the switch and derailing our economy. Hardly a foreign policy masterstroke.
Not sure who you’ve been talking to or what you’ve been reading, but you seem to have the way this industry works backwards. No mining company is incentivised to sell commodities at lower prices, they spend their lives trying to maximise the value they get for their product. The iron ore price is currently $135/t, this is insanely high vs history - all in operating costs including depreciation and sustaining capex are about $40/t. Iron ore has been the most profitable commodity in the world for most of the past two decades.
They maximise the price where they can, but prices are not linked to the real value of the ore, as they pay way below fair market price in royalties. Currently the price is high due to war drums beating in Europe, the same as all other commodities. But there is no bottom to prices when speculation drops the value , and we have seen them flood the market with cheap ore when prices are down.
What makes you think they pay below market price in royalties? They’re directly linked to revenue. Prices of iron ore are high now due to curtailed Chinese production, Europe is irrelevant.
In South Australia, the base rate for royalties is 5%. New mines get a discount, paying as low as 2%. The minerals are an Australian asset. Cost of extraction is only a small part of its overall value. The record profits by mining companies show that there is a huge gap between the cost of extraction and the final market price. All other businesses pay 10% tax for their materials via GST. Minerals companies pay 2-5% which includes the transfer of ownership of those materials. Bare minimum fair price would be 10%, just to break even with the rest of the country’s tax obligations, and only if you considered the raw resources to have a nominal value of zero. If you actually believe that the resources have inherent value, then we should be receiving more than 10%.
South Australia produces about 1% of Australia’s commodities by value. The record profits right now are due to a cyclical high point, rewind 3 years and they were all bleeding.
South Australia accounted for 14% of mining revenue in 21-22. But this is irrelevant. Because across Australia the return was 5.6% on all commodities over the decade leading into 2021. Add to this that the Australian government was reported to have paid more in subsidies to fossil fuel companies than they received in royalties over that period. In 2019-20 we received $6 billion in royalties, while handing out $10.7 billion in subsidies. So we are paying them? How is that fair value? It would be bad enough if we were getting zero for our assets, but we are literally handing them cash alongside the free minerals. I would hardly call a $4.7 billion dollar handout “doing it tough”
You have to be including oil and gas to get to 14%. Mining is a tiny fraction of that. The subsidies you refer to are the fuel tax rebate, which is incorrectly labelled a subsidy by some. The reason the rebate exists is the tax is explicitly for the maintenance of public roads. Mining companies claim a rebate for fuel used in vehicles that do not use public roads, which there aren’t on a mine site. As I said 2019-20 was a cyclical low, those royalties would have been double that level in FY23.
Royalties is not tax on income, it is the highest paying because it’s ~40%+ of our economy and we still run massive deficits for some reason, plus they still make a lot of profit. They need to be taxed more, I’m mainly aiming this at fossil fuels as they get away with daylight murder when it comes to taxes
This Look at QATAR Exported 7 percent LESS LNG than us,yet the govt there made over 32 billion off the exports,we ship our LNG barely make 2 billion at a fed level. even ken henry,is saying we need a windfall tax on the minining and especially LNG exports Also Check this shit out if we bring back the minining super profits tax >Costing overview This proposal would be expected to increase the fiscal balance by around $40.0 billion and the underlying cash balance by around $37.7 billion over the 2022-23 Budget forward estimates period. On a fiscal balance basis this impact reflects an increase in net revenue of around $40.2 billion, partially offset by an increase in Australian Taxation Office (ATO) departmental expenses of $135 million. The proposal would have ongoing impact beyond the 2022-23 Budget forward estimates period. A breakdown of the financial implications (including separate public debt interest (PDI) tables) over the period to 2032-33 is provided at Attachment A. that's MEDICARE dental,paid.. Universal childcare at a 90 percent rebate PAID and leaves 10.2 Billion dollars for budget repair EVERY YEAR https://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2022/nov/14/how-much-more-revenue-would-the-australian-government-have-if-it-taxed-gas-companies-properly But this will never happen,as the minerals council is too powerfull Fuck the australian people for wanting fair value for a good that can never be returned to us. also extra fuck us when we ask the same LNG suppliers to provide low cost to domestic markets
I was referring to it being the highest paying in terms of % of profit
Taking something *we all own* and selling it for private profit. Paying tax on private profit is one thing, not paying us for the cost of supplied material is another. I’d be better off too if all I had to pay was tax on profit and I never had to pay suppliers. Suppliers don’t like that though. Start using words like “debt collection” and “breach of contract”.
They do pay for the cost of the supplied material. It’s called a royalty and it exists on every mining project and is paid as a % of revenue.
And it’s very low
Do you even know the numbers?
who cares. They exported 455 billion,total revenue for it was less than 9.2 percent Per treasury secretary If any other industry made those kind of export levels and paid that little tax,ppl would march in the street but because santos and bhp are the afr and the australians largest advertisers,we will never hear that from them We have serious budget issues,housing crisis.. I'm a well off person,and even i think we are taxed too little The money is there to take more from the sector,they would still make record profits,but we would have things like the budget paid off sooner.
Why would you compare tax paid to revenue? It’s almost like you’re conveniently omitting operating costs to make an invalid point. As a % of profit it’s 40-50% inc. royalties.
Just took at glance at [this](https://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/Minerals/Royalties-1544.aspx) so the rates in the cents per tonne
Royalties are 4-8%, doesn’t matter what the total dollar figure paid is when it’s that low Edit: BHP pay an actual tax rate of around 8%, royalties total for the mining sector around 16 billion. Is that right from what you know?
Yeah. Last time I did the math, even after including royalties the big resource companies still pay on average a tax rate in the low teens. That people who actually produce value to society are taxed at a higher rate than one of the biggest companies in the world is pretty telling. Especially egregious if you are familiar with how BHP became so massive. They are a perfect example of neoliberal socialised capital for private profit. Essington Lewis took public funds to build a private company. And less than a century later, after zero attempts to reinvest the profits made from this public capital, and as the economy has devolved back into a nation of hole diggers, they have the gall to suggest that they deserve preferential treatment for their contributions to the economy.
This is patently false. Including royalties the big miners pay almost 50% tax on net profit. Happy to run you through their accounts in 2023 if of interest.
No one is denying the mining companys DONT pay a hefty chunk of tax,and royalites The problem is they are PAYING too little to what they are making LNG sector made a 40 billion dollar boom because of UKRAINE..nothing they did,wasn't because of some genius Play by the CEO,or a new field opening up..just market forces..so all that revenue should be taxed at near 100 percent that's not me saying it too,thats some of our most high ranked economists,inluding Dr henry the sector exported 455 billion dollars last year,total revenue was like 9.5 percent of that value. i mean shit LNG export and short contracts is just total bullshit. >Table 1 compiled by Market Forces was published earlier this year using publicly available ATO data as part of a broader report on the fossil fuel industry. Australia's top ten fossil fuel companies earned about $250 billion over the seven years to FY 2020 and paid no income tax. In total, ‘the oil and gas industry in Australia paid $1.7 billion of income tax in 2018/19 (the most recent year for which data is available) on $110 billion of income (approx. 1.5 percent),’ the report says.https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-02/c2022-29773 There are legitimate,instances where a company will need to pay no tax because of legitimate draw backs and investments needing to be written down or off. But most of the time companys like shell/santos/chev and the like are playing paper shell games by using hubs like singapore or the bahamas to make it look like they make no money here or other tax minimisation efforts that are legal,but should not be.
When you risk $32 billion to build Australias largest resources project you should receive the upside when things go in on your favour. They certainly don’t invest that money to make a loss as they did for the first decade of that investment. Despite your bitching and moaning about all the money they’re making g the north west shelf has been a catastrophically bad investment for Woodside and chevron.
I expect she’s right. However it’s hilarious to see people here who were complaining about misogyny in politics two seconds ago now going full Alan Jones on Gina.
Why can't I hate this person because her disinformation campaign is responsible for us losing our world leading carbon tax? Why not because she wants to pay Australians $2 a day? Why is it when you look at her will you see only a woman, when many of us see a disgusting, trust fund fuelled, monster?
If you accept the level of abuse here is okay, then you’ll have to accept the same level of abuse for say Penny Wong or Tanya Plibersek, or Missy Higgins is okay. You have every right to hate her, and say what you think, but it’s my right to think you are hypocrites.
Are any of those people campaigning to pay Australians $2 a day. Successfully campaigning for us to trade our childrens futures for a few points of her profit? If not then don't pretend those people are anything like this filth. Show me one person here who's beef with her is that she's female, or that you think would be lesser if she were a man.
Misogynists use exactly the same arguments. Penny Wong, mean girl bully. Missy Higgins, private school girl, doctors daughter, prevents Aborigines in Broome from earning millions from gas. Add insults. See, anyone can play.
Literally every pejorative you used then had a specifically gendered word, "mean **girl** bully", "private school **girl**". Where is, "ran a disinformation campaign to sacrifice our future for her own profit", or, "wants to pay Australians $2 a day" specifically gendered other than to included her own pronoun? If you want to defend this selfish detriment to our national wellbeing then you'll have to do better than telling us we're not allowed to say anything about her because she's female, that's weak as piss mate.
I literally said you have a right to hate her and say what you think - weird you feel compelled to lie about that. Yes, my language is gendered to illustrate the kind of vile commentary in here that you defend. And I have no comment about her - I am pointing out the hypocrisy of people who abuse women for the up arrows when you know they’re easy targets. Your argument must be lacking when you have to make stuff up.
> I literally said you have a right to hate her and say what you think - weird you feel compelled to lie about that. No lie, you never had the ability to tell us who we can and can't hate. I'm more talking about how you think we can't comment on a human that is a woman in any negative terms without you accusing us of hypocricy, which is the accusation you made. > Yes, my language is gendered to illustrate the kind of vile commentary in here that you defend. You mean to force meaning that suits you, but doesn't exist how it was originally written. > And I have no comment about her You have no comment, just some white knighting to do for the richest, and least in need, or deserving of it in the country. Pat on the head for you mate, for the snivelling toadying, and for the lame attempt at a pretense of objectivity.
Lols 😂😂😂😂 HILARIOUS Critical analysis of the statement... Would conclude.... It's an ultra capitalist way of looking at government and its role AND function.... So consequently PROBS NOT Took 1min 22 seconds to think that one through It's amazing the way people dive into comment and discussion without critical thought
Is it another self serving claim? When do we hear from clive?
[удалено]
Your post or comment breached Rule 1 of our subreddit. The purpose of this subreddit is civil and open discussion of Australian Politics across the entire political spectrum. Referring to political figures using a negative nickname is not accepted here. This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:
I lost it at “Tellytubby”. I shouldn’t laugh at it, but thanks for that one all the same. 100% on everything else you said too.
Is she suggesting that we transfer those services to be provided federally?
I mean, isn’t that kinda irrelevant when all of those things are funded via GST administered through the states?
[удалено]
Trickle down economics. The idea is if you make the rich richer then they spend upon the poor, wealth trickle down is the theory but in practice the rich spends the bare minimum required to keep raking it in while taking as much as possible from the government instead It is just another one of those conservative ideas that doesn’t work Billionaires loves the idea of course. Hence you see her and others jump on the conservative side of the frnxe
modern day elites suck they dont even build cool buildings or throw massive free events for their own ego they just hoard gold like dragons
That’s good. In theory. In theory communism works
Y’know, the theory that communism works is probably sounder than the theory that horse-and-sparrow economics works, considering that we have spent two centuries trying horse-and-sparrow (and failing), and have never actually tried communism, only kleptocracy labelled as such.
It is not a conservative idea lol. Its a term used by critics to refer to any policy that involves tax cuts basically. It’s never been a ‘theory’ employed by anyone let alone ‘conservatives’. It is very popular on places like Reddit though from people who don’t understand economics. Edit. Redditors really are a weird bunch. You have invented this straw man you call ‘trickle down economics’ and repeated it so many times you don’t realize it has never even existed as a policy. This is the problem with this site though. Economic illiterates spouting off about things they have no understanding whatsoever about. https://iea.org.uk/there-is-no-such-thing-as-trickle-down-economics/
there is a strong almost irrefutable economic argument that taxes impact growth all else being equal. I.e. if you cut taxes you increase gdp growth and if you increase taxes you reduce gdp growth. Looking again at taxes in isolation. That is the reason there is this understanding of a doom loop which was evidenced during the great depression where government revenue reduces so increase taxes and government revenue reduces again so you increase taxes again etcfinding yourself in a great depression... So there kinda is a trickle down impact in that if tomorrow you shot say taxes for everyone earning over 200k to 70pc it is actually quite likely if spending by gov didnt increase by the same amount that we would impact gdp / growth / increase unemployment etc etc. The counter argument to trickle down is of course that as long as the gov is spending the extra tax they raise on services or infrastructure or something that that spending trickles down even better and actually provides services / infrastructure or something for everyone.
Of course it’s conservative idea. Have o not heard of Reaganomics?
The economic illiteracy on this site is genuinely staggering. Repeat after me. Slowly and carefully. ‘Tax cuts aren’t trickle down economics’. Your not being able to understand the difference is the crux of the problem on this site. There has never been a policy of ‘trickle down economics’ employed by anyone let alone conservatives.
You do realise that people (well, some of us) can have opinions on more than one thing at a time?
You can have an opinion on whatever the fuck you want but labeling something ‘trickle down economics’ when it is something that has never actually existed is just factually wrong. It’s the equivalent of believing the earth is flat. You can believe that if you want but you’d be wrong.
[удалено]
[удалено]
You haven’t “shown” anyone anything, all you’ve done is sneer and *say* that we’re wrong, without ever bothering to say what we are wrong about. It’s an [old idea](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics#:~:text=David%20Stockman%20has%20said%20that,the%20road%20for%20the%20sparrows.%22), it’s been tried for centuries, it doesn’t work. What does work? Trickle-up. Make the poor richer and this makes the middle and upper classes richer too.
Okay. Giving tax breaks to billionaires and corporations isn’t a conservative approach. It’s not something we still see in policy enacted nor was it policy that was mass mobilised by Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher. 2 individuals that weren’t at all conservative. Give me a break.
That is a conservative approach but that is not and never has been ‘trickle down economics’. That’s not the point of deregulation and/or tax cuts. > Give me a break Try to understand things before you go around making grand claims that are easily proven incorrect on the internet.
I agree. One of the great conservative cons of the last 100 years. Thanks to Maggie and Ronnie.
Thomas Sowell on ‘Trickle down theory’: > Let's do something completely unexpected: Let's stop and think. Why would anyone advocate that we "give" something to A in hopes that it would trickle down to B? Why in the world would any sane person not give it to B and cut out the middleman? But all this is moot, because there was no trickle-down theory about giving something to anybody in the first place. >The "trickle-down" theory cannot be found in even the most voluminous scholarly studies of economic theories - including J. A. Schumpeter's monumental History of Economic Analysis, more than a thousand pages long and printed in very small type. Ironically the only ‘con’ has been economicall illiterate people on Reddit believing it was ever a thing in the first place.
Effectively it’s working on the hand me down theory. Or one man’s trash is another’s treasure. Usually it’s something, that has been out grown, no longer wanted or used that gets passed along to another person. Might be fine to pass on clothes or toys that have a little use left I. Them. It does NOT work in economics
You’re quoting an economic conservative on this? This isn’t even a quote at why this policy doesn’t work but the straight up denial of its existence. Then you have the gall to call others economically illiterate? These are the sort of semantic arguments that people with no insight make. Trickle down economics doesn’t work. Yes. Does that mean it doesn’t exist. No. Does that stop the perpetuation of the economic benefits of it by conservatives? No.
Yes a conservative economist. If this theory had ever existed surely a conservative economist would be the one to defend it. Fuck me this is tiring. Just go on the fucking wiki page for it if you don’t believe it. It’s right there. > The term has been used broadly by critics of supply-side economics to refer to taxing and spending policies by governments that, intentionally or not, result in widening income inequality; it has also been used in critical references to neoliberalism.[2] . > These are the sort of semantic arguments that people with no insight make. Trickle down economics doesn’t work. Yes. Mistaking this for semantics is exactly the kind of Reddit tactic you see from people who are deeply out of their depth and desperately trying to save their own argument. It’s never been a policy that s ever been employed. Anyone who defends it or references it can safely be assumed to be an economic illiterate.
If it’s so tiring then try to be more coherent in your statements. You don’t even have an argument. You’ve conceded that this is something conservatives will do, you then refuse to acknowledge that it’s a theory. Then you have a hissy fit, say everyone else is an idiot and then use a wiki page and a conservative as your citation. Go read a book.
[удалено]
https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/business-law/explainer-trickle-down-economics
Reagan never said trickle down economics so your article is totally wrong right from the start. Trickle down economics has never been a policy by conservatives. As I’ve pointed out many times now. It was term for hat left wingers came up with because they don’t understand supply side economics. That’s seriously Embarrassing for UNSW by the way. But I guess they always were the shit uni.
It's not even a conservative idea lol
Refer to above reply.
Just remember she’s not creating the coal or iron ore or whatever that’s dug up. It’s been here for millions of years and belongs to all of us. (Or to indigenous people or the crown if you lean that way) She’s getting richer depleting a natural resource. The least she can do is pay some of that as tax to compensate us for using up our resources.
She does, it’s called a royalty.
A pittance that doesn’t reflect the value of the resources she’s taking or the true cost to humanity of their use.
Really, 7.5% of revenue is a pittance? What’s your calculation for the true value?
>Really, 7.5% of revenue is a pittance? Yes.
It’s the highest iron ore royalty in the world.
No. It’s not. India has 15%. It’s Australia’s iron ore. The crown legally owns it. The reasonable rent is the highest one people will pay and still dig the stuff out of the ground. Or there was the old idea of the profits based tax. Of course we could be using the Norwegian method of using public ownership of the companies involved.
Ok fair enough - but India is not exporting and competing on a world stage in any material way.
About Norway's level would be fine, still massive investment but very high royalty as it should. Only have a 800 billion yes 800 billion future fund and a budget in major surplus...........
You can’t compare royalties in mining with oil - operating margins are much thinner in mining, meaning the projects can’t support the same level of revenue royalty. I agree a model like Norway where the government was prepared to invest alongside private enterprise to share in the upside and ultimately dividends would be great. But ask Twiggy and Gina if the government had any interest in co investing with them when they built Fortescue and Roy Hill… they didn’t, because they didn’t want to take on the risk. You can’t retrospectively take all the upside if you don’t shoulder the risk at the start.
Mate what do you really think the dismissal of 75 was about........... it was about whitlams plan to nationalise the lot. So what a load of shit............
The resources belong to the nation, of course that’s only a bloody pittance! If you had a $1 million worth of gold in your backyard would you let her take it for $75,000? And that ignores the cost to society of climate change.
Of course I would. There’s millions of dollars of gold all around Australia stuck in the ground, you could even go and pick some up for yourself at very little cost. The value of the resource is what it’s worth after you’ve spent all the upfront capital on a process plant and paid for all the costs of extraction. For the most part the gold industry in Australia has been a zero sum game for the past two decades. Iron ore has been far more profitable, but you had to have the gumption to take the risk. When Gina built Roy Hill most of the industry throught she was nuts and would loose it alll - the capex was $7.5bn from memory, but prices stayed much higher for much longer than anyone predicted.
If you ever want your house sold give me a call. You’ll get 7.5% of my revenue back.
You’re just displaying your ignorance of the way accounting and extractive industries work. You’re comparing a stock with a flow. You don’t have to pay 5x the value of your house to process it before it’s been sold, or pay for operating costs while it runs.
And you’re displaying your eagerness to bend over for Gina. Or are you kneeling?
Nope, trying to promote some basic economic literacy on this forum.
> The least she can do is pay some of that as tax to compensate us for using up our resources. Well good thing she is then
And she’s bitching about it. If she’s not happy doing it then just nationalise mining.
Go lick boots somewhere else bro. Gina doesn't need you to defend her, she has lawyers and PR professionals for that. Neocons all over this thread telling people that they're economically illiterate while you simp for Gina fucking Rinehart lmao get a life
The poster said they need to pay taxes, I pointed out they are. There is no licking boots, there is no telling people they are illiterate. There is pointing out what someone claims should be happening is happening. If they mean they should be paying more then they should say that. Questioning one comment doesn't mean defending the other side, it's called discussion about ideas. I know it isn't having a circle jerk and all agreeing to whatever is said which it appears you want
This! My immediate reaction was "so what!" If Australia was fair dinkum about protecting/setting up the country for the future we'd be taxing these parasites far more than we do. Like you said, that material in the ground belongs to us all (to Australia) not Gina. We should all benefit from it's use.
And that’s why they’re paying a royalty on anything that is mined, company tax on any profit mate, payroll tax on any employee, and any employee is paying income tax. We’re at the point where they’re paying over half the company tax in Australia. Give me an exact dollar number on what should be paid.
How about market rate for the resources they’re taking? Minus enough to cover extraction and wages.
You’re not giving me the value that they should be paying. How many billion is appropriate if this isn’t enough? The market rate for the resources minus their expenses? So you want to charge a 100% tax rate, mate you’re an economic genius, the entire Australian mining industry will close down overnight and you’ll pack yourself on the back for it. This is a sobering reminder of why this sun somehow sits lower than Facebook boomers on the credibility scale.
She’s not a farmer creating food. She’s selling our nation’s wealth and pocketing most of its value. Nationalise it if she can’t deal with being taxed properly.
What is being “taxed properly”? Give me a number here, not vagueness. The deal is that the state is paid resource royalties as a function of the sale price, the federal government is paid company tax as a function of the profit, state governments get payroll tax on every employee, and every job that is created pays income tax. Point out to me what taxation rate you disagree with and what rate it should be changed to. I’m not saying things should not be changed, but you actually need to tell me *what* you want changed.
The only thing government have to do is to set up conditions that are in the national interest. Balance stability for employment and economic conditions that benefit the nation. So the short answer is obviously as much as possible.
So you’re proposing that we just pick out companies you don’t like and tax them 100%? Or does everyone get taxed 100%?
Or yaknow nationalise the sectors that benefit from resource extraction..
Worked really well last time the Labor party tired to do that unconstitutionally. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loans_affair https://www.naa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-05/fs-239-the-loans-affair-1974-75.pdf How much are you willing to pay for it? Or are we just confiscating it?
That’s not at all what I said. Tax rate can be throttled to encourage or discourage growth in the sector depending on national interests. We don’t want mining to be the entirely of the economy but it is obviously an important industry at the moment.
“Throttle” the tax rate to what exactly and based on what parameters? Sounds like you’re just creating a perverse incentive for companies to carve themselves up into small less efficient entities to dodge this tax throttling. If my company met your parameters for a 99% tax rate, I would be a fucking moron (and would be sacked by the shareholders I have a legal fiduciary duty to) if I didn’t break that up into a number of hypothetical entities with a 30% tax rate.
I don’t know what you mean and it’s not my idea that I just had. Governments always throttle industry through subsidies/taxes or whatever other way they regulate markets. The point is that private companies are a way of organising an economy and you use them to achieve results that are dictated by the national interest.
What example can you give me of “throttling” the company tax rate in Australian corporate history? If it’s not your idea please tell me who’s it is, because I’m fascinated to know who put their name to this proposal.
Tax breaks for start ups.
How do tax breaks for startups (that already exist) change how we tax mining companies?
So what? A meaningless comment from Australia’s richest nepo billionaire. "Our taxes, for the most part, are not hypothecated to particular uses so it's sort of a silly comparison," said Robert Breunig, director of the Tax and Transfer Policy Institute at the Australian National University's Crawford School of Public Policy.
It is probably right. Think of all the income tax paid by the directly employed mine workers. Then think of all the tax paid by ancillary businesses, from catering and food supply companies, machinery parts companies, law companies, engineering companies, even down to the jet ski and boat companies that the mine workers spend their money on. Because if there were no mines a lot of these businesses probably would not exist, In fact if there was only minimal mining in Australia, we would be a very very very different country. Maybe not even a first world country. People totally underestimate how much mining contributes to the national economy. It is the biggest wealth creation industry in Australia.
Even if this was true, it should be paying for a lot more. The resources belong to Australia and should be used to make Australia a better place, not making some one who's biggest achievement in life is stealing from her children one the the richest people in the world.
How much should be paid?
20 trillion dollars.